ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Brendan Dassey , murder cases , Steven Avery , Teresa Halbach

Reply
Old 12th November 2020, 08:10 PM   #521
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,885
negative result in the test for blood

Originally Posted by JTF View Post
2) A portion of that garage lit up like a christmas tree when sprayed with Luminol.
Luminol is only a presumptive test, and one that gives a wider range of false positives than other presumptive tests, such as the Kastle-Meyer test. The Kastle-Meyer test gives false positives in the presence of substances that catalyze the same reaction as a peroxidase. Luminol reacts in the presence of catalysts but also in the presence of oxidants. A positive result from a presumptive test indicates the possibility that a substance is present. A positive result is a reason to move on to a confirmatory test. This is (almost literally) Forensic Chemistry 101. McHrozni mentioned some of these problems in the first thread, in comment #3553. Academic references available upon request.

Mr. Ertl agreed under cross examination that the reaction was faint. The claim that it lit up like a Christmas tree is, putting it charitably, an exaggeration, perhaps originating with Mr. Kratz's closing remarks. From what I can gather Mr. Ertl also acknowledged that he tested for blood and that the result was negative. A quick perusal of the trial testimony leaves me with the impression that Mr. Ertl used the phenolphthalein test (the Kastle-Meyer) test. This test is capable of detecting blood that has been diluted by a factor of 1000 or more, although it is still only a presumptive test. Only a positive result from a confirmatory test is conclusive evidence for the presence of blood.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 12th November 2020 at 08:27 PM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2020, 08:27 PM   #522
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,394
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Luminol is only a presumptive test, and one that gives a wider range of false positives than other presumptive tests, such as the Kastle-Meyer test. The Kastle-Meyer test gives false positives in the presence of substances that catalyze the same reaction as a peroxidase. Luminol reacts in the presence of catalysts but also in the presence of oxidants. A positive result from a presumptive test indicates the possibility that a substance is present. A positive result is a reason to move on to a confirmatory test. This is (almost literally) Forensic Chemistry 101. McHrozni mentioned some of these problems in the first thread, in comment #3553. Academic references available upon request.

Mr. Ertl agreed under cross examination that the reaction was faint. The claim that it lit up like a Christmas tree is, putting it charitably, an exaggeration, perhaps originating with Mr. Kratz's closing remarks. From what I can gather Mr. Ertl also acknowledged that he tested for blood and that the result was negative. A quick perusal of the trial testimony leaves me with the impression that Mr. Ertl used the phenolphthalein test (the Kastle-Meyer) test. This test is capable of detecting blood that has been diluted by a factor of 1000 or more, although it is still only a presumptive test.
My reference to the Luminol test is in regards to the photographs taken after the chemical was sprayed on the garage floor. If memory serves, 1 of those photographs was included in MAM. It's important to note that Dassey told his mother that he helped his uncle clean the garage and that bleach stains were clearly evident in photographs taken of Dassey's jeans.

Last edited by JTF; 12th November 2020 at 08:34 PM.
JTF is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2020, 09:08 PM   #523
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,885
When was the luminol applied

Originally Posted by JTF View Post
My reference to the Luminol test is in regards to the photographs taken after the chemical was sprayed on the garage floor. If memory serves, 1 of those photographs was included in MAM. It's important to note that Dassey told his mother that he helped his uncle clean the garage and that bleach stains were clearly evident in photographs taken of Dassey's jeans.
What was the date that the luminol was applied?*

As I have noted elsewhere, Dassey's jeans should be examined under a microscope. This can differentiate between bleach stains and discoloration due to abrasion. There is a good pair of photographs that illustrate this point in a book coauthored by Jane Taupin.
EDT
*I believe that it was on 6 November. If so, then it is quite unlikely that bleach was responsible for the luminol reaction. Bleach loses its ability to react with luminol in about eight hours (PMID: 15966054; DOI: 10.1002/bio.865).
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 12th November 2020 at 09:23 PM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2020, 02:07 PM   #524
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,141
Brendan Dassey’s jeans
Quote:
The jeans are dark blue in colour, with pockets on each of the legs. The legs have a rather large width - quite commonly worn by youngsters in the late 90's and early 00's. On the jeans several white stains can be seen...

Fassbender went to the motel where Brendan and his mother were staying. Fassbender inquired about the jeans and Brendan said he had worn a pair of jeans on the 31st of October while cleaning "dark red stains" from his uncle's garage and had bleach stains on them...

Supporters of Avery and Dassey claim that if bleach came on the jeans, then there should have been blood on it as well, if that is what Avery and Dassey were cleaning that night. The fact that the jeans came back negative for the presence of blood is evidence, according to Avery & Dassey supporters, that no blood was cleaned that night and Avery & Dassey were framed.

On the other hand, if they were cleaning something other than blood, another red fluid, then shouldn't that, according to this logic, be on the jeans instead? At trial, Brendan Dassey explained he made sure he did not come in any contact with the red fluid, which is probably why his jeans were clear of red stains.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Dassey_Exhibit_054.jpg (65.8 KB, 2 views)
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2020, 08:14 PM   #525
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,885
Repeat after me: luminol is a presumptive test, luminol...

Brendan's faulty interrogation compromised his memory IMO. I take his subsequent statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, with generous grains of salt. For the sake of argument let us accept that there are bleach stains on his jeans. They cannot be dated by any means known to me. There are multiple explanations for such stains; they are not probative.

What I would like to know is what the pro-guilt commenters think caused the luminol-positive area to react, and why?
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2020, 05:08 PM   #526
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,394
I just read the State of Wisconsin's 5/27/20 response to Zellner's special brand of hyperbole. She is seeking an evidentiary hearing to present her unique mixture of supposition, innuendo, speculation, and defense funded expert opinions. I found the State's reply to be concise, thorough, and aggressive in rebutting all of Zellner's flimsy claims. I particularly enjoyed their commentary on page 53 regarding Zellner's attempts to paint Ryan Hillegas as being the "real" murderer.

https://www.workwithkz.com/media/fil...respondent.pdf

Last edited by JTF; 16th November 2020 at 05:11 PM.
JTF is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2020, 05:56 PM   #527
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,885
Chrismas in Manitowoc

JTF,

What I would like to know is what the pro-guilt commenters such as yourself think caused the luminol-positive area to react, and why? Also are you now willing to admit that "lit up like a Christmas tree" was misleading nonsense? If not, why not?
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 16th November 2020 at 06:10 PM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2020, 06:01 PM   #528
rockinkt
Graduate Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,905
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
I just read the State of Wisconsin's 5/27/20 response to Zellner's special brand of hyperbole. She is seeking an evidentiary hearing to present her unique mixture of supposition, innuendo, speculation, and defense funded expert opinions. I found the State's reply to be concise, thorough, and aggressive in rebutting all of Zellner's flimsy claims. I particularly enjoyed their commentary on page 53 regarding Zellner's attempts to paint Ryan Hillegas as being the "real" murderer.

https://www.workwithkz.com/media/fil...respondent.pdf

"unique mixture of supposition, innuendo, speculation".

Everything one shouldn't find on a board purporting to be a sceptics board yet it is abundant in this thread and others.
No wonder Randi totally and completely rejected anything to do with this board as he saw that it was a haven for specious, illogical, and purely argumentative conjecture.
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt
rockinkt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2020, 08:05 PM   #529
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,394
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
JTF,

What I would like to know is what the pro-guilt commenters such as yourself think caused the luminol-positive area to react, and why? Also are you now willing to admit that "lit up like a Christmas tree" was misleading nonsense? If not, why not?
Again, my reference was to the photographs taken of this particular area of Avery's garage. If you felt mislead, I apologize, but the photographs clearly depict a glowing portion of the garage floor. You nor I have any expertise in determining the reason or reasons for the luminol reaction, yet it appears that even the prosecution/defense experts didn't have a definitive explanation for this reaction. What is not in dispute is that the day after Halbach's disappearance, Avery took the day off from work, he asked his nephew to assist him with cleaning the garage floor with bleach, and that the jeans worn by Dassey contained several bleach stains. A ballistics expert for the prosecution matched a bullet found in Avery's garage to a rifle located on the wall over Avery's bed, Halbach's DNA was found on the bullet, and so on and so forth.

Last edited by JTF; 16th November 2020 at 08:28 PM.
JTF is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2020, 02:56 AM   #530
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,192
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
"unique mixture of supposition, innuendo, speculation".

Everything one shouldn't find on a board purporting to be a sceptics board yet it is abundant in this thread and others.
No wonder Randi totally and completely rejected anything to do with this board as he saw that it was a haven for specious, illogical, and purely argumentative conjecture.
I find the board informative, and this thread damned interesting.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2020, 07:04 AM   #531
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,885
not bleach and not bleach-cleaned blood

Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Again, my reference was to the photographs taken of this particular area of Avery's garage. If you felt mislead, I apologize, but the photographs clearly depict a glowing portion of the garage floor. You nor I have any expertise in determining the reason or reasons for the luminol reaction, yet it appears that even the prosecution/defense experts didn't have a definitive explanation for this reaction. What is not in dispute is that the day after Halbach's disappearance, Avery took the day off from work, he asked his nephew to assist him with cleaning the garage floor with bleach, and that the jeans worn by Dassey contained several bleach stains. A ballistics expert for the prosecution matched a bullet found in Avery's garage to a rifle located on the wall over Avery's bed, Halbach's DNA was found on the bullet, and so on and so forth.
JTF,

We know that the luminol reaction was not due to bleach (Creamer J.I., et al., Luminescence 2005; 20: 411–413, the citation that was previously given). When known blood on concrete is cleaned with bleach, the phenolphthalein test (the Kastle-Meyer test) is still positive. See Table 1, bottom entry in Gross AM, Harris KA, Kaldun GL. "The effect of luminol on presumptive tests and DNA analysis using the polymerase chain reaction." J Forensic Sci 1999; 44(4):837–840. It is very difficult to see how bleach could destroy iron ions, and first-row transition metal ions often give false positives in presumptive tests for blood. Yet in the Avery garage the K-M test gave a negative result. Therefore, we know that the luminol-positive area was not likely to be bleached-cleaned blood. Please speak for yourself when it comes to expertise. Also, expertise is not the same as detailed knowledge. I agree that the substance in question has not yet been identified.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 17th November 2020 at 07:52 AM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2020, 04:54 AM   #532
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Again, my reference was to the photographs taken of this particular area of Avery's garage. If you felt mislead, I apologize, but the photographs clearly depict a glowing portion of the garage floor. You nor I have any expertise in determining the reason or reasons for the luminol reaction, yet it appears that even the prosecution/defense experts didn't have a definitive explanation for this reaction. What is not in dispute is that the day after Halbach's disappearance, Avery took the day off from work, he asked his nephew to assist him with cleaning the garage floor with bleach, and that the jeans worn by Dassey contained several bleach stains. A ballistics expert for the prosecution matched a bullet found in Avery's garage to a rifle located on the wall over Avery's bed, Halbach's DNA was found on the bullet, and so on and so forth.
They were actually cleaning up on the night of murder. Confirmed by Avery himself when Jodi rang him from jail.

Essexman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2020, 05:38 PM   #533
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,394
Avery's Garage

The forensics sweep of Avery's garage and subsequent investigative efforts resulted in the following conclusions.

A portion of the concrete floor reacted to the chemical Luminol. This chemical produces a glowing effect which indicates the presence of human blood, animal blood, some bleaches, and metals. Subsequent testing was unable to produce a definitive source for the Luminol reaction, but analysts were able to determine that the concrete floor had been cleaned with bleach and pain thinner. Brendan Dassey admitted to his mother and investigators that he assisted his uncle in cleaning the garage floor with bleach and paint thinner. Investigators subsequently collected and photographed jeans worn by Dassey.

The front of Dassey's jeans showed signs of apparent bleach splash patterns. Dassey also constructed a drawing of his uncle's garage depicting Halbach, Avery, and Dassey in their locations when Teresa was murdered via gunshot(s) to the head. Two bullet fragments were found in the garage and one of those bullets bores traces of Halbach's DNA. State crime lab firearms expert William Newhouse concluded that this bullet had been fired from a rifle found hanging over Avery’s bed. Newhouse linked ammunition found in Avery's desk drawers to this bullet fragment.

Last edited by JTF; 18th November 2020 at 05:47 PM.
JTF is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2020, 06:29 PM   #534
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,885
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The forensics sweep of Avery's garage and subsequent investigative efforts resulted in the following conclusions.

A portion of the concrete floor reacted to the chemical Luminol. This chemical produces a glowing effect which indicates the presence of human blood, animal blood, some bleaches, and metals. Subsequent testing was unable to produce a definitive source for the Luminol reaction, but analysts were able to determine that the concrete floor had been cleaned with bleach and pain thinner. Brendan Dassey admitted to his mother and investigators that he assisted his uncle in cleaning the garage floor with bleach and paint thinner. Investigators subsequently collected and photographed jeans worn by Dassey.

The front of Dassey's jeans showed signs of apparent bleach splash patterns. Dassey also constructed a drawing of his uncle's garage depicting Halbach, Avery, and Dassey in their locations when Teresa was murdered via gunshot(s) to the head. Two bullet fragments were found in the garage and one of those bullets bores traces of Halbach's DNA. State crime lab firearms expert William Newhouse concluded that this bullet had been fired from a rifle found hanging over Avery’s bed. Newhouse linked ammunition found in Avery's desk drawers to this bullet fragment.
JTF,

As I have explained previously, what you posted is highly misleading. The K-M test is more specific (in the statistical sense of the word) than luminol is, yet it is still only a presumptive test. Even a positive result from a KM test would not demand the conclusion that blood were present; that would require a confirmatory test. Yet the garage gave a negative K-M test. It has been known since at least 1999 that the K-M test can detect blood that has been cleaned with bleach. See attached image, which is a portion of Table 1 from the paper by Gross and coworkers that I previously cited. The first three columns refer to the phenolphthalein test and are B, W, and D, respectively. We do not know what the luminol-positive substance is, but we know what it is not.

If you wish to read up on forensic testing for the presence of blood, I suggest:

Forensic Science Reform Protecting the Innocent Elsevier, 2017. ISBN: 978-0-12-802719-6, Edited by Wendy J. Koen and C. Michael Bowers
Chapter 8: Presumptive and Confirmatory Blood Testing, Christopher Halkides and Kim Lott.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Gross_phenolphthalein_luminol_concret.jpg (35.0 KB, 1 views)
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 18th November 2020 at 06:32 PM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2020, 12:46 AM   #535
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,394
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
JTF,

As I have explained previously, what you posted is highly misleading. The K-M test is more specific (in the statistical sense of the word) than luminol is, yet it is still only a presumptive test. Even a positive result from a KM test would not demand the conclusion that blood were present; that would require a confirmatory test. Yet the garage gave a negative K-M test. It has been known since at least 1999 that the K-M test can detect blood that has been cleaned with bleach. See attached image, which is a portion of Table 1 from the paper by Gross and coworkers that I previously cited. The first three columns refer to the phenolphthalein test and are B, W, and D, respectively. We do not know what the luminol-positive substance is, but we know what it is not.

If you wish to read up on forensic testing for the presence of blood, I suggest:

Forensic Science Reform Protecting the Innocent Elsevier, 2017. ISBN: 978-0-12-802719-6, Edited by Wendy J. Koen and C. Michael Bowers
Chapter 8: Presumptive and Confirmatory Blood Testing, Christopher Halkides and Kim Lott.
You certainly have the right to give a hand wave to the talking points in my post, but your mix of pot shots with selective commentary (e.g., Luminol issue only), provides me with ample motivation to put forth the following challenge(s).

1) Please point out why the following statement in my post is "highly misleading."

"Subsequent testing was unable to produce a definitive source for the Luminol reaction, but analysts were able to determine that the concrete floor had been cleaned with bleach and pain thinner."

2) Please point out why the following statement(s) in my post are "highly misleading."

"Brendan Dassey admitted to his mother and investigators that he assisted his uncle in cleaning the garage floor with bleach and paint thinner. Investigators subsequently collected and photographed jeans worn by Dassey. The front of Dassey's jeans showed signs of apparent bleach splash patterns."

3) Please point out why the following statement(s) in my post are "highly misleading."

"Dassey constructed a drawing of his uncle's garage depicting Halbach, Avery, and Dassey in their locations when Teresa was murdered via gunshot(s) to the head. Two bullet fragments were found in the garage and one of those bullets bore traces of Halbach's DNA. State crime lab firearms expert William Newhouse concluded that this bullet had been fired from a rifle found hanging over Avery’s bed. Newhouse linked ammunition found in Avery's desk drawers to this bullet fragment."

Last edited by JTF; 19th November 2020 at 12:51 AM.
JTF is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2020, 01:30 AM   #536
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,192
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
You certainly have the right to give a hand wave to the talking points in my post, but your mix of pot shots with selective commentary (e.g., Luminol issue only), provides me with ample motivation to put forth the following challenge(s).

1) Please point out why the following statement in my post is "highly misleading."

"Subsequent testing was unable to produce a definitive source for the Luminol reaction, but analysts were able to determine that the concrete floor had been cleaned with bleach and pain thinner."

2) Please point out why the following statement(s) in my post are "highly misleading."

"Brendan Dassey admitted to his mother and investigators that he assisted his uncle in cleaning the garage floor with bleach and paint thinner. Investigators subsequently collected and photographed jeans worn by Dassey. The front of Dassey's jeans showed signs of apparent bleach splash patterns."

3) Please point out why the following statement(s) in my post are "highly misleading."

"Dassey constructed a drawing of his uncle's garage depicting Halbach, Avery, and Dassey in their locations when Teresa was murdered via gunshot(s) to the head. Two bullet fragments were found in the garage and one of those bullets bore traces of Halbach's DNA. State crime lab firearms expert William Newhouse concluded that this bullet had been fired from a rifle found hanging over Avery’s bed. Newhouse linked ammunition found in Avery's desk drawers to this bullet fragment."
I am impressed by the idea Brendan watched Teresa being executed.
Can we have the transcript from Weigert and Fassberger.
I am not saying he did not watch the event because there are difficulties I had not understood with the defence case for both Steven and Brendan.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2020, 03:18 PM   #537
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,394
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I am impressed by the idea Brendan watched Teresa being executed.
Can we have the transcript from Weigert and Fassberger.
I am not saying he did not watch the event because there are difficulties I had not understood with the defence case for both Steven and Brendan.
Beginning on page 62 of the following link... https://jenniferjslate.files.wordpre...ipt_3.1.06.pdf

... the issue of Brendan witnessing his uncle murder Teresa in the garage via gunshot(s) to the head is broached.

WIEGERT: All right. I'm just going to come out and ask you. Who shot her in the head?

DASSEY: He did.

FASSBENDER: Then why didn't you tell us that?

DASSEY: Cuz I didn't think of it.

FASSBENDER: Now you remember it? (Brendan nods "yes"). Tell us about that then.

DASSEY: That he shot her with his .22.

WIEGERT: You were there though?

DASSEY: Yeah.
JTF is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2020, 01:14 PM   #538
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,192
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Beginning on page 62 of the following link... https://jenniferjslate.files.wordpre...ipt_3.1.06.pdf

... the issue of Brendan witnessing his uncle murder Teresa in the garage via gunshot(s) to the head is broached.

WIEGERT: All right. I'm just going to come out and ask you. Who shot her in the head?

DASSEY: He did.

FASSBENDER: Then why didn't you tell us that?

DASSEY: Cuz I didn't think of it.

FASSBENDER: Now you remember it? (Brendan nods "yes"). Tell us about that then.

DASSEY: That he shot her with his .22.

WIEGERT: You were there though?

DASSEY: Yeah.
"Cuz I didn't think of it" is a remarkable oversight for Brendan.
It suggests to me he is still trying to please the cops and get home to the wrestling show .
How could Steve, with a witness, persuade Teresa to be shot? Brendan it seems should have recalled quite a lot of detail once on a roll of disclosure.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2020, 03:37 PM   #539
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,885
Richard Ofshe

"After watching the Dassey tapes, [Richard] Ofshe believes Dassey was giving a forced confession.

“I see something that almost makes one ashamed to be an American,” Ofshe said. “It’s that bad. I’ve studied the transcripts… they threatened him. They told him there are people who want to charge him and we are your shield from those people. … ‘We are going to help you.’ They tell him repeatedly as long as Steven told you to do this, you didn’t do anything wrong… And then through that they get him to say anything that they want him to say.”"

SNIP

“Why didn’t you tell us that?” the investigator asked.

“Because I couldn’t think of it,” he responded.

[Laura] Nirider said, that “Any fair reading of that sequence is that Brendan is guessing. He’s guessing in an attempt to placate his interrogators.”
ABC.

Richard Ofshe is associated with the Marty Tankleff and Norfolk Four cases of false confession.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2020, 04:05 PM   #540
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,141
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
"Dassey constructed a drawing of his uncle's garage depicting Halbach, Avery, and Dassey in their locations when Teresa was murdered via gunshot(s) to the head. Two bullet fragments were found in the garage and one of those bullets bore traces of Halbach's DNA. State crime lab firearms expert William Newhouse concluded that this bullet had been fired from a rifle found hanging over Avery’s bed. Newhouse linked ammunition found in Avery's desk drawers to this bullet fragment."
If Avery is innocent then this damning evidence needs to be handwaved away explained, and there is only one improbable logical explanation - the cops framed him.

That also means his big cleanup in the garage, large bonfire in the burn pit (complete with human remains), and having a meeting with Teresa Halbach earlier are all mere coincidences that the cops took advantage of. Of course they also had the remarkable luck to find her dead body and vehicle in locations that made it easy to frame him - or did they plan it all out ahead and actually caused these 'random' events to coincide?

How did the cops manage to get Teresa's hacked up body into the burn pit without Steven noticing, and how did they make sure he would set fire to it? How they fake all the other evidence? And who actually killed her - was it them, someone they paid to do the deed, or an unrelated murder that just happened to sync up with their plans? Perhaps one day the cops will come clean and tell us how they did it...

“When you have eliminated the evidence, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” It's simply elementary.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2020, 04:19 PM   #541
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,885
"A Path Forward" on tool mark analysis

Originally Posted by JTF View Post
You certainly have the right to give a hand wave to the talking points in my post, but your mix of pot shots with selective commentary (e.g., Luminol issue only), provides me with ample motivation to put forth the following challenge(s).

1) Please point out why the following statement in my post is "highly misleading."

"Subsequent testing was unable to produce a definitive source for the Luminol reaction, but analysts were able to determine that the concrete floor had been cleaned with bleach and pain thinner."

SNIP
3) Please point out why the following statement(s) in my post are "highly misleading."

"Dassey constructed a drawing of his uncle's garage depicting Halbach, Avery, and Dassey in their locations when Teresa was murdered via gunshot(s) to the head. Two bullet fragments were found in the garage and one of those bullets bore traces of Halbach's DNA. State crime lab firearms expert William Newhouse concluded that this bullet had been fired from a rifle found hanging over Avery’s bed. Newhouse linked ammunition found in Avery's desk drawers to this bullet fragment."
Regarding point 1, I have demonstrated with citations from the forensic literature that the substance was not bleach, nor was it a bleach-cleaned bloodstain. You have been told this repeatedly, and your response is to offer an insult instead of an explanation. And this was after you were called out for exaggerating the strength of the luminol reaction. Can you cite forensic evidence demonstrating that bleach and paint thinner were used? If you cannot, then it isn't worth discussing.

Regarding point three, The National Research Council's 2008 report Ballistic Imaging stated, “A significant amount of research would be needed to scientifically determine the degree to which firearms-related toolmarks are unique or even to quantitatively characterize the probability of uniqueness.”

The 2009 NAS Report “Strengthening Forensic Science: A Path Forward” concluded in part, “Toolmark and firearms analysis suffers from the same limitations discussed above for impression evidence. Because not enough is known about the variabilities among individual tools and guns, we are not able to specify how many points of similarity are necessary for a given level of confidence in the result. Sufficient studies have not been done to understand the reliability and repeatability of the methods.”

In 2011 Paul Giannelli wrote, "In a different passage, the [NAS] report remarked that “[m]uch forensic evidence ‘including, for example, bite marks and firearm and toolmark identifica- tions’ is introduced in criminal trials without any meaningful scientific validation, determination of error rates, or reliability testing to explain the lim- its of the discipline.” (Id. at 107-08.)"

In 2017 Sarah L. Cooper wrote, “However, overall, Strengthening concluded that ‘The scientific knowledge base for tool mark and firearms analysis is fairly limited.’” She went on to say, “The NAS [National Academy of Sciences] commented that ‘[t]his AFTE [association of firearms and tookmark examiners] document, which is the best guidance available for the field of tool mark identification, does not even consider, let alone address questions regarding variability, repeatability, or the number of correlations needed to achieve a given degree of confidence.’”

Thus Mr. Newhouse's claim of uniqueness is unscientific. Maybe someday the pro-guilt commenters will stop offering up rose fertilizer while claiming that it smells like roses.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 21st November 2020 at 04:56 PM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 08:07 AM   #542
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
If Avery is innocent then this damning evidence needs to be handwaved away explained, and there is only one improbable logical explanation - the cops framed him.

That also means his big cleanup in the garage, large bonfire in the burn pit (complete with human remains), and having a meeting with Teresa Halbach earlier are all mere coincidences that the cops took advantage of. Of course they also had the remarkable luck to find her dead body and vehicle in locations that made it easy to frame him - or did they plan it all out ahead and actually caused these 'random' events to coincide?

How did the cops manage to get Teresa's hacked up body into the burn pit without Steven noticing, and how did they make sure he would set fire to it? How they fake all the other evidence? And who actually killed her - was it them, someone they paid to do the deed, or an unrelated murder that just happened to sync up with their plans? Perhaps one day the cops will come clean and tell us how they did it...

“When you have eliminated the evidence, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” It's simply elementary.
That pretty much sums up the absurdity of Steven Avery not being the killer.
Essexman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 08:25 AM   #543
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,192
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
That pretty much sums up the absurdity of Steven Avery not being the killer.
Do we have a photograph of the remains of the bonfire as befits even a minor crime?
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 08:45 AM   #544
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Regarding point three, The National Research Council's 2008 report Ballistic Imaging stated, “A significant amount of research would be needed to scientifically determine the degree to which firearms-related toolmarks are unique or even to quantitatively characterize the probability of uniqueness.”

The 2009 NAS Report “Strengthening Forensic Science: A Path Forward” concluded in part, “Toolmark and firearms analysis suffers from the same limitations discussed above for impression evidence. Because not enough is known about the variabilities among individual tools and guns, we are not able to specify how many points of similarity are necessary for a given level of confidence in the result. Sufficient studies have not been done to understand the reliability and repeatability of the methods.”

In 2011 Paul Giannelli wrote, "In a different passage, the [NAS] report remarked that “[m]uch forensic evidence ‘including, for example, bite marks and firearm and toolmark identifica- tions’ is introduced in criminal trials without any meaningful scientific validation, determination of error rates, or reliability testing to explain the lim- its of the discipline.” (Id. at 107-08.)"

In 2017 Sarah L. Cooper wrote, “However, overall, Strengthening concluded that ‘The scientific knowledge base for tool mark and firearms analysis is fairly limited.’” She went on to say, “The NAS [National Academy of Sciences] commented that ‘[t]his AFTE [association of firearms and tookmark examiners] document, which is the best guidance available for the field of tool mark identification, does not even consider, let alone address questions regarding variability, repeatability, or the number of correlations needed to achieve a given degree of confidence.’”

Thus Mr. Newhouse's claim of uniqueness is unscientific. Maybe someday the pro-guilt commenters will stop offering up rose fertilizer while claiming that it smells like roses.
Newhouse fired the same ammunition from Avery's rifle and compared them to the bullet fragments and shell casings found in Avery's garage.

I doubt any of names you quoted above would disagree with Newhouses findings considering all three markers matched (shell casing, firing pin and rifling marks).





Essexman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:37 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.